Gpuccio: The Case of the Starry Sky is Bad Faith

I think gpuccio went over to top with his comment to Josh just as James Tour went over the top with his comment about Szostak’s work.

What you see as misrepresenting the facts maybe just a difference of opinion. Gpuccio took the trouble to make a thoughtful response to Art over at UD. He may not be right but he put sincere thought into a very interesting and challenging debate.

PS can be a group that promotes open discussion or shuts it down. It’s just a choice.

1 Like

True, but scientists do everything they can to clear it. You live in a particularly thick one.

It hasn’t worked with you, though; you’re over there completely misrepresenting people’s positions. Why?

1 Like

Yet gpuccio bailed from PS because he had no answers to the serious flaws pointed out in his FI claims. Instead he retreated to the safety of UD where comments are heavily censored and most pro-science people are banned.

Does that sound like someone interested in an honest critique of his ideas? To me it doesn’t.


Yes, and I believe it did an outstanding job of it in this particular case.

If the discussion dies, I think it is fair to place the blame on the individual that packed up his toys, went home, and then complained about how he was treated.


I didn’t see you taking issue with him on that, Bill. Why?

No, I would say that you writing:
“Art Hunt and Rumraket have seen the light and realize that 500 bits of FI is very unlikely achievable by evolutionary mechanisms and so are arguing for low FI in proteins.” (post 601)

is a total and likely deliberate misrepresentation of @Art 's and @Rumraket’s position. But I’ll leave that up to them to dispute.

What you (seem to) fail to understand in your relentless personalizations is that this is really basic molecular biology that you and @gpuccio do not take the time to understand before claiming that you understand it better than the experts.

I don’t think that you have any idea whether it was thoughtful or not.

Again, you should not be speculating on the sincerity of others. Someone who crows, “I believe I’m right,” without looking carefully before doing so, is a priori unlikely to be sincerely putting thought into challenges to his claim.

In that context, note that for antibodies, he isn’t even bothering to consider the information produced in a single step by VDJ recombination, just “maturation.”

That is easily clarified:

  1. Determine what the facts are.

  2. See if the person in question is accurately representing or describing these facts.

When it is determined he is not, it still leaves open the question of whether he is honestly mistaken, or simply lying. But the question of whether he is misrepresenting the facts is no longer in doubt.


Can you be more specific.

Why is it no longer in doubt?

He just provided an example of you doing exactly that in post 25.

1 Like

Because people here have eyes and can read the false claims gpuccio wrote Bill.


What you seem to fail to understand is this is nothing but an unsupported claim. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

That you and gpuccio don’t understand virtually anything about evolutionary biology has been empirically demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. Your continued refusal to include selection effects in your “it’s too improbable!!” calculations are a prime example.


I was.

1 Like

In the end here all is left is opinion. Opinion is open for debate as much as you want to shut it down.

No, there are many facts, such as the fact that you misrepresented @Art’s point that Doug Axe had created, by random mutation, active beta-lactamases that are very different from those observed in nature. The same is true for catalytic antibodies with beta-lactamase activity.

Those are both facts that you have ignored. You’ve grossly misrepresented the former. Why?

1 Like

I agree with @Art point that Doug created different beta-lactamase that are not found in nature. I may have disagreed with what he concluded. You criticize me for personalizing arguments. What are you doing here?

That’s not how you presented it over at UD. That’s my point. You’ve ignored the fact that beta-lactamases have been produced as catalytic antibodies. That’s another point.

You never articulated any such disagreement.

Criticizing your behavior. It doesn’t lead to scientific conclusions.

You didn’t just “disagree with what he concluded”. You deliberately misrepresented his stated position. Why?


Can you provide evidence of this?

“Beta lactamase is not highly preserved.”

Then @gpuccio completely ignored that and went off on natural ones, but you did not correct him, just as you were silent when, according to you, he

That was a really lame response, Bill.

And there’s still no explanation of your gross misrepresentation of Art’s and Rumraket’s positions:

The idea that because we think that FI is not a meaningful measurement of information somehow means that any of us have conceded that 500 bits is very unlikely achievable by evolution is preposterous.

1 Like